just wondering if anyone still uses 35mm film ?
I've got two cameras, a Minolta and a Pentax, together with spare lenses, and before they head to the charity shop, I wondered if anyone on the forum would have a use for them ?
alan
My local charity shop wouldn't take my old 35mm camera as there was 'no demand', so I still have it. I'm sure there must be some film enthusiasts out there. How about selling on eBay. Some cameras are collectables.
:beers:
I still use film occasionally, got a real bargain , a Mamiya 35mm slr.
40 years old and never used, cost me £12 from a charity on Ebay.
Boots still sell film.
Quote from: broadsword on January 02, 2018, 02:13:45 PM
Boots still sell film.
I tried Jessops but they didn't have any. They said "Have you tried Boots?" to which I replied "Yeah - but they wouldn't fit in the camera"
Baddum tish!
(Soz :-[)
Like you Alan I have some old Pentax cameras, lenses, and a leather case for one of them. They were my late father-in-laws. I have often looked at selling them but prices are very low, and getting lower it seems. A couple of local charity shops showed little interest in taking them, so I guess I'm waiting for the day, like with old vinyl albums, that a nostalgia fad kicks in. :) A long wait then. ::) So they sit in the bottom of a wardrobe, lamenting the day when they were all the rage.
I like the ease of digital, but there is nothing like a film-format camera to take a quality picture, particularly a landscape. And I owned the same film camera for decades, whereas until recently it was rather necessary to keep upgrading to the latest resolution digital camera to get rid of the dots. (Yeah, I know, they're called pixels, before anybody mentions it.)
I got a reasonable price for the 28-105 and 100-300 lenses of my old 35mm camera (Minolta body and lenses), as well as the flash unit, but the body was worth nothing at all.
Sold them on EBay last year. Or was it the year before. Nice to get rid.
Quote from: daffy on January 02, 2018, 04:35:25 PM
Like you Alan I have some old Pentax cameras, lenses, and a leather case for one of them. They were my late father-in-laws. I have often looked at selling them but prices are very low, and getting lower it seems. A couple of local charity shops showed little interest in taking them, so I guess I'm waiting for the day, like with old vinyl albums, that a nostalgia fad kicks in. :) A long wait then. ::) So they sit in the bottom of a wardrobe, lamenting the day when they were all the rage.
I like the ease of digital, but there is nothing like a film-format camera to take a quality picture, particularly a landscape. And I owned the same film camera for decades, whereas until recently it was rather necessary to keep upgrading to the latest resolution digital camera to get rid of the dots. (Yeah, I know, they're called pixels, before anybody mentions it.)
IMHO Daffy the time when you could say digital images suffer from 'dots' has long passed. You just can't see the pixels on modern reasonable quality cameras at even fairly high magnification - say equivalent to 20 x 16 prints.
Its very difficult to get a good 20x16 from 35mm. The pixels are replaced by grain (unless you use fine grain but slow film) and dust spots generated during the development and enlargement process.
Digital is here to stay methinks.
:) :beers:
I sold all my Minolta kit on ebay a couple of years ago, and it was worth the effort. The lenses still fit Sony Alpha SLRs (or did until recently, haven't checked).
I haven't used film for several years, but curiously I have less interest in photography now even though I take more photos than I did then. I have to say that, when digital cameras started to appear, the quality was so poor I never thought they would catch on, let alone eclipse film photography entirely. The quality of detail you can now get even on a phone camera (Samsung S8 for example) beats anything a 35mm camera could do. So, I have a Pentax sitting unused, and my wife has a Nikon F, bought in Hong Kong in the 70s, and which I'm told is one of the few that is collectable.
Seems a wicked shame just to bin them...
Cheers,
Chris
Yes Bob, it's here to stay, as my Canon 16meg slr testifies. As I said, until recently (okay, not that recently, but now I'm retired everything past seems just last year ;) ), previous digital cameras I owned were never up to the job in the detail stakes, with dots dominating.
Funny things is, I still like looking at my albums full of film prints, but rarely get the same joy swiping through the hundreds of digital images I've taken. Maybe it's a nostalgia thing.
:beers:
Quote from: daffy on January 02, 2018, 05:35:27 PM
Yes Bob, it's here to stay, as my Canon 16meg slr testifies. As I said, until recently (okay, not that recently, but now I'm retired everything past seems just last year ;) ), previous digital cameras I owned were never up to the job in the detail stakes, with dots dominating.
Funny things is, I still like looking at my albums full of film prints, but rarely get the same joy swiping through the hundreds of digital images I've taken. Maybe it's a nostalgia thing.
:beers:
Yes. Its nice looking at prints. Images on a screen don't seem to have the same appeal.
Similar to the difference between an eBook and a real book.
I had one of the original Olympus digital cameras with, wait for it, almost a whole megapixel resolution. Now that DID have dots and cost more than current medium range dslr's
:no: :beers:
Old cameras are probably worth more as decorative objects than working cameras, like old telephones.
A few years ago an East German camera called Lomo developed a cult following here in France (the camera equivalent of a Trabant) but that didn't last long.
Best regards,
Joe
Pentax k mount lenses still fit current pentax digital cameras , if the lenses are auto lenses they have full function others can be used manually .I continued to use my Pentax film cameras up to the point local processing became hit or miss before going digital
I still have all my old film cameras, first SLR was an old Minolta, it was totally manual, no electronic help at all, my light meter was a separate device also manual, the one thing it did teach was how to set up for the shot and to take into account how fast your object was moving, lighting, depth of field, composition, a one click and several weeks of waiting (developing time) made you pay attention.
Digital cameras these days take very good picture but they make a lot of bad photographers think they are good, after all if they don't use manual settings its just a big expensive point and shoot, rapid click for multiple shots (fix anything wrong on the computer afterwards)
But alas no I don't use film or slides anymore, no more choosing black and white or colour, or deciding what Film speed to buy.
Yeah, I did all that back in the early seventies with a Praktica and a separate light meter. I bought an Olympus OM10 in 1982 which I still consider to be the best camera I owned.
When I did a 5 week's stint teaching Physics at my old place of employ in 2015, there were still kids from art classes wandering around the school taking "arty" pics on black & white film which they would develop themselves in a darkroom in the art block.
Somewhere in the attic I have a bag with a couple of ZeniTs and a Cosina with TTL metering + a few rolls of film. I have many annuals of photos of foreign excursions and loads of boxes of transparencies, mainly of motorcycle racers who have long gone to the circuit in the sky. I still have a hand held gizmo for looking at the slides.
You're probably gonna think I'm a bit nerdy but I scanned every one of my 10000 approx slides and negs using a Reflecta scanner.
All are now available on my PC and backed up several times over.
Many of these piccies are of preserved locos and railways. Wouldn't be without them, although misses keeps asking me why I didn't take more piccies of the family.
:)
Yep, Me!!! :claphappy:
Well, to clarify a bit, I still have my Olympus OM10 which I use for Black & White photos, mostly moody portraits, but most of my photography is now done with a Nikon D750 and sometimes my phone (Galaxy S7) which seems to take reasonable snaps, although the lack of proper manual control is a limiting factor.
Something I discovered whilst on holiday was a "shirt pocket" size digital compact unit branded as a Hasselblad - the Stellar model. The guy who owned it let me have a play (very kind of him) and I was very impressed with it, as one ought to be with a Hasselblad, right?? Except.....when I hooked it up to my laptop to download the photos there were some rather familiar file structures. A bit of google research revealed it was a re-badged Sony RX-100 with a posh wooden grip that seems to add over £1000 to the price. However, if Hasselbald were going to enter into badge engineering this was absolutely the right camera to do it on. If you are in the market for a camera which fits in a shirt pocket, takes photos like a DSLR and can be had for under 500 quid, this is the one.
Quite recently I was looking at a digital medium format camera but the 2 things which put me off were the physical size of it and the size of the files it generates. Yes it can be dialled down to a lower resolution but then I might as well stick with the D750. After all, 90% of the quality comes from the glassware.
As for your old film bodies Alan, they're worth the square root of sixpence sadly. Lenses, if decent quality ones, are still worth good money though, especially if they fit DSLR cameras. I had to pay strong money to get a Nikkor 50mm F1.2 recently. I wanted an old manual one as they are vastly superior to modern units. Still fits my D750 and works fine in manual mode. Image quality is absolutely sublime, but that one (50 year old) lense cost me 300 quid.
I do agree with Daffy about being able to thumb through a photo album though and whether it's nostalgia or some other reason I don't much care. I love some of my old photos in much the same way I like reading books, real books, not a Kindle or IPAD, proper paper books.
Dom.
Quote from: Dsolds on January 03, 2018, 09:59:32 AM
I do agree with Daffy about being able to thumb through a photo album though
Well, there's a simple solution... get your digital photos printed! My local Snappy Snaps charges 20p a print, and images can be supplied to them on a disk, a memory stick, direct from my phone, or sent online. So you can take your best 20-odd photos from an event, holiday or excursion and get them in print form for less than a fiver. Seems pretty good value to me, and a great deal more convenient than the old film-print system (and you don't collect pictures of your feet!)
That's fine up to a point, it just doesn't quite capture the moment like traditional film printing methods, especially in black and white which is why I still use film for that. Add in the fact that capturing xx number of shades of grey using a sensor designed for colour is not perfect you can see why I stick with 35mm for that one scenario.
For everything else I agree, printing digital photos has come a very long way and is more than good enough for most things.
Not a 35mm camera but I have one of these.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentax_Auto_110.
Film is available but rare and relatively expensive So i haven't used the camera for years.
Having had a look around it is worth something though, as it always was a rarity.
Quote from: Dsolds on January 03, 2018, 12:16:41 PM
it just doesn't quite capture the moment like traditional film printing methods, especially in black and white which is why I still use film for that.
Interesting :hmmm:
My bridge camera has the facility to use sepia, black & white and blue & white so I wonder what the printing of black & white would turn out like. Might give that a whirl.
Quote from: newportnobby on January 03, 2018, 02:42:26 PM
My bridge camera has the facility to use sepia, black & white and blue & white so I wonder what the printing of black & white would turn out like. Might give that a whirl.
I don't do much serious photography any more, but I've seen some stunning B&W prints done on Epson photo paper.
Likewise. Main problem with printing black and white is getting the colour management right for the printer and paper used. Doesn't take much of a colour tint to screw things up.
:beers:
dear all,
thank you very much for all the replies, and interesting points raised.
looks like my first option might be to look into seeing if I can get a digital body that would use the lenses.
one is a telephoto lens that I bought years ago in Edinburgh when on holiday, and it was quite expensive.
seems a pity to just bin them, even if to a charity shop if they'll take them.
the trouble is I do like to have a big brick in my hand, lets you know what you are doing, all these lightweight airey-fairy things just don't feel right.
again, thanks for your comments and at least I now 'have a plan' :)
For Pentax lenses I recall the Fuji ST range use the Pentax thread mount lenses. You don't say which of version your telephoto lens is but if you're going down this route I suggest keeping your "best" lens and finding a modern DSLR camera that can use it. Then PX the other lenses for some new glass at a specialist.
Minolta lenses (pre 2006 ish) will only fit a Sony camera now. Sony bought the whole shebang from Minolta about 10 years back. There was rumour that adapters could be found for Nikon F mount but I have never seen them.
Or, you could sell the lot on EBAY and use the cash as you wished. You won't get a lot for the bodies, if they even sell at all, but the glassware always has a value. :thumbsup:
I still shoot film and I urge you to keep your gear!
Here's my love letter to film...
http://danbarlowphotography.co.uk/why-i-still-shoot-film/ (http://danbarlowphotography.co.uk/why-i-still-shoot-film/)
You can still buy all sorts of film online, there are even new film manufacturers starting out! If you want a digital body to use your lenses with, there are lots of converters for the various digital mirrorless bodies out there. You'll have more luck with a mirrorless body and older lenses than with a DSLR as there's a feature called Focus peaking on mirrorless which is a very useful substitute for the traditional focus screen (manual focus with a DSLR is a trickier business, it being centered around autofocusing)
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/tips-and-solutions/what-focus-peaking (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/tips-and-solutions/what-focus-peaking)
Quote from: austinbob on January 02, 2018, 04:53:09 PM
Its very difficult to get a good 20x16 from 35mm. The pixels are replaced by grain (unless you use fine grain but slow film) and dust spots generated during the development and enlargement process.
Digital is here to stay methinks.
:) :beers:
If you use a traditional enlarger then a 20x16 print from 135 will be quite poor; but I've had good quality 30x20 print made from 135 film after I've scanned it with my Plustek 8100i scanner or with a Fuji Frontier machine. Still, most of the prints I sell never go beyond 12" on the long edge so seeing grain in big prints from film or digital isn't an issue!
Digital is here to stay but film has a strong position alongside it still, especially as a learning tool (film shooting is still a critical part of any photography degree) or artistic medium.
Pentax lenses fit fit all Pentax cameras. A bit obvious but old lenses will fit new Pentax cameras. There are adapters that will allow lenses to fit other makes of cameras. http://forum.mflenses.com/ (http://forum.mflenses.com/) is a site full of information on old lenses and will give an idea of values.
Just need to know whether the Pentax lenses are K mount or M42... Equally, we don't know whether the Minolta stuff is SR mount or A mount!
Quote from: d-a-n on January 04, 2018, 09:36:08 PM
Just need to know whether the Pentax lenses are K mount or M42... Equally, we don't know whether the Minolta stuff is SR mount or A mount!
right, to be honest I don't know, but perhaps the following may help:
Pentax is an ME Super.
lens on camera is a pentax-m 1:2.828mm
second lens is a pentax-m 1:1.7 50mm
telephot lens is a Cosina 100-300mm 1:5.6 - 6.7mc macro lens
Minolta is a dynax 300sl
lens on it is a 70 - 210mm 1:4.5(22) - 5.6
second lens is a35 - 70mm 1:3.5 (22) - 4.5
don't know if that helps at all ?
The Dynax would definitely be A mount. These were recent cameras only produced in the 1990's so that's that one. I had a Dynax 700i which was a superb camera and of 1995 vintage, A mount lenses etc.
The Pentax is older (70's or 80's) and would very likely have the K mount. My Pentax knowledge is very limited never having owned one but Camerapedia comes up with this
Pentax ME Super
Maker
Pentax
Dates
1980-1986
Variants
chrome, black, SE
Lens mount
Pentax K with fully automatic diaphragm linkage
Quote from: class37025 on January 04, 2018, 11:02:07 PM
Pentax is an ME Super.
lens on camera is a pentax-m 1:2.828mm
second lens is a pentax-m 1:1.7 50mm
telephot lens is a Cosina 100-300mm 1:5.6 - 6.7mc macro lens
That's all very useful and means I can give you a definite answer!
These Pentax lenses will be K mount lenses and will fit on this type of camera https://www.wexphotovideo.com/pentax-k-70-digital-slr-camera-body-1600229/ (https://www.wexphotovideo.com/pentax-k-70-digital-slr-camera-body-1600229/) - just bear in mind that if you're used to 28mm being wide angle, it'll appear more like 42mm did on a your film camera through the viewfinder due to the smaller sensor (see here for more about crop sensors and crop factor https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/tips-and-solutions/understanding-crop-factor (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/tips-and-solutions/understanding-crop-factor).) Equally, the 50 will look more like 75mm and the telephoto lens becomes even more telephoto at 150-450mm! The K-70 is a decent camera but it's expensive and if you decided to go down the route of buying autofocus lenses from Pentax for it, the options are slimmer than that of Canon/Nikon and they don't make any really affordable lenses like Canon do, plus there isn't the wealth of secondhand stuff on the market to snare at a cheaper price.
Quote from: class37025 on January 04, 2018, 11:02:07 PM
Minolta is a dynax 300sl
lens on it is a 70 - 210mm 1:4.5(22) - 5.6
second lens is a35 - 70mm 1:3.5 (22) - 4.5
These Dynax lenses are compatible with Sony A mount cameras such as this A68: https://www.wexphotovideo.com/sony-alpha-a68-digital-slt-camera-body-1585551/ (https://www.wexphotovideo.com/sony-alpha-a68-digital-slt-camera-body-1585551/) - again, the crop factor thing comes into play and as it's not Canon or Nikon, it suffers the same issue to the above Pentax in that there are fewer affordable lenses and generally slimmer pickings on the secondhand market.
If I were in your situation, I'd fire some rolls of film through these beauties and use the lenses as intended and not worry about using these on a digital body, maybe purchasing a digital camera of some sort (compact/bridge/DSLR/mirrorless) to use alongside the film bodies at a later date, but not letting the above lenses dictate the type of camera you buy. The above entry point is over £400 and even an older DSLR body from Pentax/Sony will stand you at around £200. That buys a lot of film and developing!
Hope this helps, Dan.
Quote from: d-a-n on January 04, 2018, 10:57:04 AM
a feature called Focus peaking on mirrorless which is a very useful substitute for the traditional focus screen (manual focus with a DSLR is a trickier business, it being centered around autofocusing)
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/tips-and-solutions/what-focus-peaking (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/tips-and-solutions/what-focus-peaking)
Thanks, that is news to me, very interesting.
The tricky part of manual focusing can be aided with adapters that have a focus chip in them. Focus Confirm, I think, are the words to look for. I have an M42 to Canon adapter that mimics the autofocus, you do the manual turning of the lens instead of the usual motor and the camera beeps when you reach focus and red dots appear in the viewfinder on the in-focus region(s)
Another thing to watch out for (on M42 to Canon at least) are some adapters that dont allow the lens to reach infinity focus.
I dont know if this is common or if it was just a bad batch that still turn up cheap on ebay.
Thanks to all contributors here, especially d.a.n. as I now know definitively that what I have are Pentax ME and ME Super bodies with K mount lenses.
It seems the day that these will be worth something more than they are today is a pipe dream, so I shall stick them on eBay or some such and turn what to me is scrap into something more ngauging.
:thankyousign:
Sounds like a plan. Hope you find a buyer for your old kit.
:beers: